Was FP Corruption Bug fixed?

[Kuciwalker]

Civ4 guinea pigs, anyone?

Please, no.

[Jaguar]

I think corruption should be lowered in addition to this change. But if that is not done, then I want the PTW style FP back.

[DrSpike]

Well having read all the posts from Firaxis again, I think they want a situation which I would call the intuitive one, which is Vanilla/PTW corruption but with no RCP and no bugs where you could get many cities with rank 1 after the FP was built.

Hopefully they will get there soon........it has been over 2 years and it's not worked as regards their stated aims yet though.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I think corruption should be lowered in addition to this change. But if that is not done, then I want the PTW style FP back.

I hate corruption

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Catt
I disagree that a strong FP means warfare is a required approach. It's often quite possible to expand into 2 decent cores and build an FP manually. War may offer many benefits in Civ 3, but I just don't think a strong case can be made that it is required. In certain positions or certain games, aggressive expansion may in fact be the way to go (may even be "required" in the sense that the game will be exceedingly difficult to compete effectively without it); but I fail to see how war was required in earlier versions employing the traditional "strong" FP.

True, I suppose there are circumstances where you may be able to get enough land for a good second core without going to war. I can think of games on the lower levels with few AI's, or games as Aggie described – large huge worlds or worlds where you can cut off the AI’s at chokepoints and the like.

But in my experience it is rare to get enough land for a good second core that doesn’t encroach on your primary core. Certainly on the higher levels, with the bonuses the AI's receive, it is very hard to out expand them - I was playing monarch once on a standard map, continents, 70% water. I had two floodplain cities producing settlers every 4 turns, pre-roaded to every new city location, and I still couldn't keep up with AI expansion.

And say you do manage to expand enough, can I ask you Catt, how do you then build your FP? Do you rush a courthouse and then wait 100 turns? 100 turns is a long time to wait to double the power of your civ - it makes more sense to go for a leader doesn't it? Certainly on the higher levels you need that second core up and running as soon as possible to keep up with the AI. Imagine how far the AI can get ahead in 100 turns on Emperor.

Okay perhaps war isn’t ‘essential’ in the strict sense of the word, but I stand by my point that PTW and its powerful FP was a game that encouraged and rewarded the warmonger above everything else. As you put it, it was exceedingly difficult to win without it, and thus the game was imbalanced imho. All I’m saying is that I prefer a game where other play styles stand a reasonable chance, a game that isn’t so biased towards the warmonger.

Anyway, it sounds from Jesse’s corruption thread that he is indeed leaning toward a less powerful FP. Hooray!!

[edit: grammer]

[Plotinus]

[Andydog] Precisely. I think Catt misunderstood - the reason why warfare is necessary to get a second core is not because you have to go to war to get the territory, but because the only viable way to build the FP at that distance from your capital is with a Great Leader.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, you could use an SGL.

[Mattaba]

Wouldn't it be possible to add an option to the game set-up screen, where you can choose which form of corruption calculation you like best?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Andydog

But in my experience it is rare to get enough land for a good second core that doesn’t encroach on your primary core.

There will be many circumstances in which you've no choice but to (i) have somewhat (even greatly) overlapping cores; or (ii) use warfare to acquire more room for no-overlap cores. It makes for an interesting choice, IMHO. With plenty of peacefully acquired land: do I live with overlapping cores built early, or do I target no-overlap cores completed much later? Without enough land acquired peacefully: do I live with overlapping cores and peace, or do I go to war to acquire more land for a better placed Palace-FP axis?

The real issue I was addressing was: does a strong FP (a la Civanilla and PTW) require or substantially promote warfare? You expressed the view that it does and did in PTW. My view is that warfare offers many benefits to the Civ player, but leader fishing for an FP rush is not near the top of the list of benefits.

And say you do manage to expand enough, can I ask you Catt, how do you then build your FP? Do you rush a courthouse and then wait 100 turns? 100 turns is a long time to wait to double the power of your civ - it makes more sense to go for a leader doesn't it?

Another interesting choice, IMHO. Do I build the FP in a decent city, completing it in 30 - 40 turns, or do I build it farther out (offering less overlap and more power in the later game) but incurring both the opportunity cost of a delayed FP and the costs of rushing some improvements and joining workers to bring the build time down to what makes sense given the tradeoffs?

Again, for me, it is about interesting questions -- conquering land sufficient for two entirely distinct cores (or acquiring it peacefully) and then being able to build an FP in a timely manner to make the second core productive offers certain benefits and requires certain sacrifices. Playing with a more compact empire and having "1.3" or "1.5" cores also offers certain benefits and requires certain sacrifices.

Certainly on the higher levels you need that second core up and running as soon as possible to keep up with the AI. Imagine how far the AI can get ahead in 100 turns on Emperor.

I'm confident that there are many players who have played and won on the higher levels without ever building an FP. I'm not saying it is necessarily easy nor am I saying that it is a great approach to the game, but it is within reach and doable.

As you put it, it was exceedingly difficult to win without it, and thus the game was imbalanced imho.

For clarity - I said certain games / maps make it exceedingly difficult to win without certain actions. But that, IMHO, is a good thing. Varying game conditions and challenges promote different approaches - if every start offered up every possible playstlye as a viable and equally attractive victory option, the game would become quite dull (again IMHO).

All I’m saying is that I prefer a game where other play styles stand a reasonable chance, a game that isn’t so biased towards the warmonger.

I hear you; I think warfare, generally speaking, offers more advantage to the Civ player than does peaceful building. I just disagree about the degree of bias, I guess. Peaceful play is very often quite attractive and very often offers solid chance for success. IMHO, it is the pretty rare game that requires warfare to put up a challenge and succeed. The innumerable examples of peaceful play at the highest levels (at least pre-C3C's introduction of Sid) would seem to me to confirm the view that such play is entirely within reach.

Catt

[Bonaparte]

OK, I finally have the correct patch installed thanks to an earlier part of this thread. I noticed that corruption isn't as bad as it was before I installed the patch and that the FP does seem to help, but none the less corruption is still way to high...I think I might just go into the editor and lower the corruption slider down to 75%...this is a quick fix, but it should help.

[lethe]

Originally posted by Andydog
And say you do manage to expand enough, can I ask you Catt, how do you then build your FP? Do you rush a courthouse and then wait 100 turns? 100 turns is a long time to wait to double the power of your civ - it makes more sense to go for a leader doesn't it?

Build the FP in the city next to the Palace. Make sure your second core target is the one that will get the Palace when you abandon your capital. Abandon capital. Voila, two cores set up in 10-20 rounds.

In PtW this would mean that your original core would be off center for RCP either before or after the Palace jump, in C3C this doesn't matter, as there no longer is any use in RCP.

This off course means you must build wonders in another city than your (original) capital. On Emperor this will cause some problems, but with a good worker squad, a river and artificially boosting pop it's doable. On demi-god and deity I don't build any pre-industrial wonders unless I get a SGL.

[DrSpike]

Actually in PTW after the bounce RCP in the original core was usually no longer a factor, since the palace rank bug ensured that cities closer to the FP than the closest city to palace was to the palace all had rank one.

And whilst I was a compulsive bumper before, in C3C 1.15 it is no longer the best option as frequently. The new weaker FP means you have to worry more about moving your palace to a relatively undeveloped core. Hence I advise caution in use of bumping strategy.

[lethe]

Hmm, I played too little PtW. DrSpike is off course correct.

In most cases I still think that in a ~50 turn perspective a palace jump is a definite win. It would off course be better to rush the FP with a leader, but that isn't always an option.

Since I started playing on Demi-god I'm doing something entierly different with my palace; it's migrating with the front.

Wasn't the official patch due in late February? I want it, I want it, I want it!

[DrSpike]

Well I've not played enough 1.15 yet, but I think it is certain I will bump less than I used to.

I just finished the AU game, and you started on a nice island with room for 10 or so cities. The most appropriate second core was the next island over, but it was smaller and had worse land. There was no way I was going to attempt a bump given the inferiority of the FP to the palace with 1.15 rules and the fact that I already had decent cities on the original landmass.

I suspect I will be reaching the same conclusion often. This leaves using a courthouse to accelerate production, which I predict will become the most popular strat now. Fortunately this is a viable strategy now, whereas when palace bumping was discovered it was not, since corruption was worse, courthouses sucked, and the FP cost too much!

[Feyd]

Put me down in support of setting the corruption rate max to 60-70%. The Forbidden Palace was not correctly implemented anyway since it was the Palace of the Chinese Emperor anyway! Here is what I propose:

Cap corruption at 70% for problematic (corruption) govs
Cap corruption at 60% for nuisance/communal govs
Cap corruption at 50% for low govs
Commercial lowers that number by 10% for each gov
FP drops it 10% more and doesn't rechart distance
Secret Police does 10% also and doesn't rechart dist.

This would put the cap as low as 30% across the board for Commercial Democratic or Commercial Communists who had all the bumps.

What I would really like to see is a formula to recalculate corruption based on how long it takes a 1 move unit to get from the capital to the city in question. Now the Civ police will gawk and say, "But that makes corruption 0 on your continent!" and I reply, "So?" Corruption was a huge part of the Ancient to Pre-Industrial eras in reality. The time it took envoys to get from one place to another bearing the decrees of the leadership was a huge part of the corruption problem that was pervasive in many empires. Today, however, a presidential decree is carried live by all the networks. Corruption is no longer a factor of distance from the capital as it is the amount of revenue a city has drawing greedy eyes. New York has a lot more corruption than say...Salt Lake City. Distance to the capital has nothing to do with it since agents of the government are within each city (and not to mention New York is like 5 hours from D.C.) but instead New York is just so large that it has corruption issues. So...answers...Have the travel time of a one move unit calculated into the corruption formula. If they can make it there in 0 turns then the city counts as 3 squares from the capital or effectively AS the capital. ADD a corruption rating of 5% for a city and 10% for a metro (non cumulative) So...a size 20 city with a RR from the capital feeding into it would have relatively NO distance corruption but 10% crime corruption.

Anyway, sorry to post a realistic argument for once, but I can't stand this idiotic corruption system especially in the modern age when corruption has nothing to do with the distance from the "seat of government" at all!

Peace,

Feyd